Singer Lauryn Hill attacks Catholic Church

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

It is expected Lauren Hill's performance will be cut from the show Hip hop singer Lauryn Hill has caused controversy by severely criticising the Roman Catholic Church during a concert at the Vatican. She told the audience, which included senior church officials, that the church had been corrupted by its clergy.

Ms Hill alluded to high profile cases of sex abuse of children by priests in the US.

It is expected her speech and performance will be cut from the concert when it is aired on Italian TV on Christmas Eve.

'Exploitation and abuse'

The comments came in a huge hall used by the Pope for his weekly addresses.

"God has been a witness to the corruption of his leadership, of the exploitation and abuses ... by the clergy," she said.

Standing just yards from five of the most senior cardinals in the Roman Catholic faith, Hill told the crowd to seek blessings "from God not men" and said she did "not believe in representatives of God on earth".

She then went on to sing a song about social injustice which was not the one listed on the programme.

Organisers of the concert have said it is likely her outburst and performance will not appear in the final cut.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3318273.stm

Is this real?

-- Presence (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003

Answers

Down with this anti-Catholic.

Why give her the time of day?

-- Cath.. (Bury@me.in olderthreads), December 17, 2003.


She has a lot of personal problems that she has admitted to to the press. She needs our prayers.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.


I think it's rich coming from someone who belongs to a man- made 'Bible Church', where the pastors swim in money and luxury.

There are faults happening in every church, it just so happens that our faith is the biggest and so the press pick up on it quickly.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.


"Down with this anti-Catholic. Why give her the time of day?"

I think the thing that should be noted is that she was INVITED. Why was the Vatican giving her the time of day in the first place? Why were these "most senior cardinals" ready to listen to a "hip hop artist" instead of something, oh, like Gregorian chant, for example? I want to make sure my children are exposed to quality music, so I guess I won't let them attend any concerts at the Vatican.

"God has been a witness to the corruption of his leadership, of the exploitation and abuses ... by the clergy," she said.

At least she included a little bit of truth in her tirade.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.


The way this happens is as so: the Cardinals want to present an image of the Church which is "contemporary" and open to the current musical fads or customs of the day...to connect with people. So far so good.

But virtually no Cardinal (average age is about 70) has followed pop music... and virtually none of them surf the web (for obvious reasons: it's highly toxic and full of moral pitfalls.)

And virtually none of them follow the entertainment world's latest news cycles either - so they have to rely on younger priests or lay people for advice on whom to invite.

Most likely, she was picked on the basis of not being OBVIOUSLY immoral or anti-Catholic. They probably presumed that she'd just show up, sing and that's it. I doubt that any Vatican official vetted her, spoke ahead of time about any serious moral or doctrinal issues, or even asked her opinions...

It was just an oversight.

But it also shows that the Vatican in general needs lay people to work for them and screen alot of things for them! They need help discerning who is who and getting clear information on things.

Precisely because the Vatican is not full of young, hip, wired professionals who are immersed in the media cycles and follow the "latest" developments, they don't have that pop-culture awareness.

This is why they seem so slow to react: most of the time they only read newspapers or magazines. Plus they have a lot to do besides follow the news etc.

Finally, Rome is in Italy - and Italian news media doesn't carry alot of in depth articles on American pop singers. I think it was an honest mistake given their lack of exposure, means of communication, age, and specific knowledge.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.



Joe,

Point well taken. But ... "the Cardinals want to present an image of the Church which is "contemporary" and open to the current musical fads or customs of the day...to connect with people."

WHY? Why do the cardinals want to present this image? Will having hip hop singers at the Vatican really connect with people? Will it cause even one non-Catholic to join the Church?

"I think it was an honest mistake given their lack of exposure, means of communication, age, and specific knowledge."

I agree - it was an honest mistake. I don't think any cardinal said, "let's invite some anti-Catholic singers." But why even risk it?

"Precisely because the Vatican is not full of young, hip, wired professionals who are immersed in the media cycles and follow the "latest" developments, they don't have that pop-culture awareness."

There was a time when we didn't want the Vatican to have pop-culture awareness.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.


I want to practice what I preach - so I'm not criticizing them for this mistake and leaving it at that. No, insofar as I understand the situation, I also want to offer alternative ideas...

(In the same spirit as the Church doesn't just say "no" to abortion, but also is in the forefront with actual care for unwed mothers, orphanages, etc.... so too, we can't just condemn mistakes without offering solutions from here on out.)

The alternative which they should seek isn't to cut off all pop- singers. Media is here to stay and as such the Church should be in the forefront of cultural formation (pop-culture).

So with 1 Billion Catholics, we should be routinely producing the finest singers, dancers, etc. who are both professionally on the top of their class and who morally/spiritually are true role models.

The first thing they can do is pay more attention to the singers' biographies, their actual songs, what the industry says about them, read some of their published interviews...AND THEN ASK THEM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THEMSELVES when invited.

Ideally, the Church should have an outreach program for all invitees... welcoming them, helping them in specific and personal ways, explaining and answering questions - GUIDING CONSCIENCES and pointing the way for them to excell in their vocations.

I should note that the Holy Father is EXCELLENT in this "vocational recruiting and vocational directing" art. Would that everyone learned the lessons he has taught in word and example.

So it's not a principle that the Church should stay out of pop culture. It should LEAD IT. The problem is in the application of this principle... in this case a breakdown in decision making based on a poverty of information.

The same thing happened with the sex scandals: the people who should have been told weren't. Those with authority to change the situation, either didn't have the right formation, or the information needed, or felt brow beaten into doing what everyone ELSE is doing... it happens to the rest of us so we shouldn't think bishops are immune from these powerful forces.

Bonus history tip: Arius, the 4th century arch-heretic priest from Alexandria, was also a song-writer. Indeed, Arian ideas spread throughout the empire via catchy tunes which he penned and promoted...

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.


Democrazy !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 18, 2003.


she had a very good point. we are to trust in god, not representatives of god. the pharicees were such "representatives" or "upholders of god's laws/will" and God hated what they stood for. we are to trust in god and his blessings. i think she did something very brave that was shamelessly censored.

-- Chris (i@i.com), January 01, 2004.

i think she did something very brave that was shamelessly censored.

A guest does not publically insult a host in front of other guests. If she had questions or difficulties with the host she should have either declined the invitation or taken the host asside and discussed the difficulties. To my knowledge she did neither. In short, she was rude. She also didn't have all the facts of what she was talking about, which didn't help the matter any. If her goal was to institute change, that was not the way to go about it. If her goal was publicity, she succeeded.

In Christ
Bill



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.



Public expression of bigotry is not brave, just ignorant.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 01, 2004.

Regardless of whether she was right or wrong, it was kind of an asshole thing to do. Someone invites you to sing, you don't turn around and attack them.

Moving on, SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.


Moving on, SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!

No, pray for her, she admitted in an interview she was mixed up and depressed.

In Christ,
Bill

PS: Many more Protestants burned witches than Catholics, in fact, the Church even forbade witches being persecuted in the Inquisition. You need to research your history a bit more, or post someplace else.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.


Pro-Clinton (Anti-Bush), don't use obscene language at this Catholic forum. Keep your potty-mouth for the Anarchy forum where you've used even worse language than the above. (Your worthlessness to this forum has earned you a banning.)

-- Begone, Satan (+++++@+++++.+++++), January 01, 2004.

Bill,

I was kidding, man. Chill.

Begone Satan,

Really? I'm banned from the forum? Interesting that I'm still able to post this, eh?

I'm flattered, really.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 02, 2004.



Bill,
I was kidding, man. Chill.

Hard to tell sometimes, don't really know how to think yet. ;)

By the way, I visited the anarchy forum...a little to chaotic for me.

Bill



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 02, 2004.


Yeah, it is. It's better than Anarchy I, because at least II has a mod...we almost considered passwording the place, but instead we decided to give all the inteligent regulars mod powers to help clean the place up. Oh well. We can start a discussion on Iraq and maybe give the forum the good kick in the but it needs.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.

Anti-Bush,

Please watch your language sir. Your language is in violation of forum rules.

You are entitled to post your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to post the "foul language" that you did.

I think if you are going to post in here, than you should respect the rules.

-- - (David@excite.com), January 03, 2004.


We're all big boys here, pal. Don't need to get your oanties all up in a a bunch. I'll keep the language down to a minumim but take it easy dude.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.

Really? I'm banned from the forum? Interesting that I'm still able to post this, eh?

Potty-mouthed AND illiterate too? I wrote, "Your worthlessness to this forum has earned you a banning." Note: EARNED. It's up to someone else to show the guts and smarts needed to enforce the banning you have earned.

We're all big boys here, pal.

No, "we" are not, Mr. Potty-Mouth. "We" are men and women, boys and girls. That's why you don't belong here. You don't deserve to be called any of those four things. You have never even ONCE posted a message of any value.

-- Begone, Satan (+++++@+++++.+++++), January 03, 2004.


I'm flattered.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ